BROTHER NATHANAEL, a Jewish convert to “Orthodox” Christianity, writes about the interior world of Jews in a three-part series called “How Jews Think.” Obviously, these are generalizations, and generalizations, if one accepts them, are what they are, they don’t apply to everyone:

HAVING GROWN UP AS A JEW and having gone to an upper middle class synagogue throughout my childhood up through my young adult years, I am uniquely qualified to do an expose on the inner workings of the Jewish mind. Now that I am an Orthodox Christian, having converted in 1971 to Christianity, I can see very clearly how the Jew thinks:

1. The Jew is a perpetual outsider. The Jew is a ceaseless “observer” and consequent “actor” & “reactor” upon the world’s stage. The Jew seeks to impose his will upon the Gentile whom he looks down upon as being inferior in intelligence and activism to him.

2. The Jew is always on a “mission.” The Jew always has a “cause” he must fight for. The mission and the cause of the Jew is hostile to the mission and cause of Jesus Christ and Christianity.

3. The Jew wishes to remain aloof and separate from the nations. That is why Winston Churchill initially used the term, “The International Jew.”

4. The Jew holds himself separate from the nations, not primarily for ideological reasons as prescribed in the Old Testament. Rather, the Jew remains aloof from all others because he sees himself as belonging to an elite.

5. The Jew may proclaim and propagandize though his monopoly of the Media the slogan, “Diversity Is Our Strength!” Yet the Jew will never live in a neighborhood where poor Blacks, Asians, and Hispanics live. Why not? Because the Jew despises working class folk as being culturally inferior to him and socially impotent.

6. The Jew at heart despises the ideal of the “Brotherhood of Man.” For it is only through acceptance of Jesus Christ, the Christian Church, and the Christian Universal vision of the “new man in Christ” that the Brotherhood of Man can be realized.

7. The Jew wants nothing to do with Jesus Christ, the Church, and the Christian Universal vision of the new man in Christ. Why not? First because Jesus Christ calls all men to repent which the Jew finds repulsive; Second because the Church with its eyes set on the kingdom to come is disagreeable to the Jew who seeks a kingdom of this world; Third because the new man in Christ whereby all elitist distinctions are dissolved, is an identity the Jew finds repugnant to his love of ’separateness’ and control over others.

This is from Part III of his series on the topic. Part I and Part II are here and here. From Part II:

6. The Jew, in order to attain financial power, views Christianity, with its attendant moral influence, as a threat. For profligacy, dissolute manners, and perversion of sexual mores, places the Gentile, the “Goy” under his dominion.

7. The Jew in the academic realm strives to educate according to his Jewish World View. The Jewish World View is the unspoken perception that the Gentiles, the “Goyim,” are ultimately his enemies.

8. The Jew, therefore, who operates in the academic realm, will educate the “Goyim” to believe that the Jew has been an innocent victim of Gentile enmity throughout the centuries. Thus a certain level of obligation is inculcated into the “Goyim” toward the Jew – that he is deserving of deferential treatment.

9. The Jew who operates in the journalistic realm, which today is his total control of the Press, presents current events in favour of the Jew.

10. The Jew, who operates in the journalistic realm, which today is total control of all Media, presents Christianity in a bad light. This works to his benefit. For Christianity confers strength and moral fiber to the Gentile population, which the Jew wants under his dominion.

What he is describing here is NOT a conspiracy of Jews. It is Jews acting upon their own thinking. Brother Nathanael does have a solution to the Jewish Problem he describes: conversion of the Jews.

 

— Comments —

Jeanette V. writes:

Here’s an unfavorable article about Brother Nathanael.

L. writes:

No wonder my father left Judaism almost a hundred years ago and married a WASP and lived in a household that fit Lawrence Auster’s description of American culture. He used his smarts to defend his nation for a quarter of a century and then retired to own two businesses for a decade improving the lives of everyone he met and dealt with. It must have been that high degree of trust and the sense of fair play that attracted him. Something he didn’t receive from his own family.

Laura writes:

Did Brother Nathanael mention that Jews were not trustworthy? That is not something that rings true to me when it comes to personal relations, and I have had many Jewish friends over the years.

Mark Jaws writes:

While Brother Nathaniel is spot on about the clutches the Jewish Kosha Nostra has on the news media across the nation, I cannot buy his micro-view of rank-and-file Jews. I find my fellow Jews to be pretty reasonable. If you have nurtured an intellectual relationship with them, and can bring a solid argument to the table, you are in like Flint-stein, but most conservatives often do not.

But even I have to tread carefully. If I casually mention the extent of the Kosha Nostra, most of my kinfolk will fall into Ashkenazi Apoplexy. And they will not forget. For example, during the heated and bitter 2004 presidential campaign, I made the mistake of calling some of my Jewish cousins “mini-Marxists” and I have not been invited to a Bar Mitzvah since.

And finally, your readers must bear in mind that the average Ashkenazi IQ is pretty darn high, particularly in verbal skills. Having attended all-Jewish summer camps for six years, I can tell you and your readers most Jews do indeed look down to varying degrees on you Goyim. There is also a pronounced and particularly annoying strain of what I call “Jew-bris” (rhymes with hubris), which was so delightfully displayed by the Ashkenazi Architect of Obamacare, Jonathan Gruber.

Laura writes:

Jews have such great qualities. They truly bear the marks of having been God’s chosen people.

When you say you don’t agree with his portrayal of rank-and-file Jews, do you mean that you don’t agree that the average Jew views himself as a perpetual outsider or as someone with a mission to change the world or as opposed to explicitly Christian culture? I would say these are accurate generalizations. You seem to agree that Jews do have this strong sense of identity and elitism.

Also, I don’t think Brother Nathanael has suggested that Jews are unreasonable. It seems he is is saying they have some reasons for all of these attitudes.

Paul T. writes:

This Jewish convert to Catholicism throws in his two shekels’ worth (or maybe two widow’s mites):

I had to laugh at Brother Nathanael’s presumption: “Having grown up as a Jew and having gone to an upper middle class synagogue throughout my childhood up through my young adult years, I am uniquely qualified to do an expose on the inner workings of the Jewish mind”. Really? Uniquely qualified? And is everyone with the same background also ‘uniquely qualified’? What about people who share that background but disagree on all points? Sorry, but with these words alone, it’s clear one is encountering a mind both humorless and unbalanced – a bad combo.

It’s not simply that Brother N’s generalizations don’t apply to every Jew; it’s that they’re calumnies, except when they happen to be true of particular Jews. I would beware of anyone who purports to know ‘how the Jew thinks’ (or ‘how the Irishman thinks’ or yes, even ‘how the Muslim thinks’); unless you hedge this around with so many exceptions and qualifications that the generalization loses most of its force.

“The Jew seeks to impose his will upon the Gentile”, says brother N. If he is talking about the will to power, I would say that’s a human universal, and an expression of original sin. I don’t see it any stronger in Jews than in non-Jews, perhaps you do. Did the Greeks have a will to power? The Romans? The Vikings? the Muslims? the Germans and Japanese? etc etc. Even the Portuguese and Swedes had empires. It is the essence of antisemitism to dissassociate oneself from vices and to project them onto Jews, or to maintain that the vices are somehow worse when Jews practice them. “The Jew will never live in a neighborhood where poor Blacks, Asians, and Hispanics live”. Guess what? Neither will anyone else with a little money.

Brother N says that Jews find repentance ‘repulsive’, which is interesting, since the holiest day on the Jewish calendar (the Sabbath aside) is Yom Kippur, which is all about repentance. And the Hebrew word usually translated as repentance (t’shuvah, ‘turning back’) occurs in the Old Testament nearly 1,000 times. It’s true, repentance is not popular among secular Jewish liberals. But wait, it’s not popular among secular non-Jewish liberals, either. That dang dissassociation/projection thing again….

I happen to agree with Brother N that conversion to Christianity would be the happiest solution for Jews and others, including nominal Christians. Let’s just say that his charges against Jews do not bring that result any nearer. To serve up stuff that could come straight out of Stormfront with one hand, and the Good News with the other, shows an ignorance of human nature that is just breathtaking. Brother N needs to get himself ‘uniquely qualified’ about that.

Laura writes:

I don’t read Stormfront. So you believe Nathanael wants to harm Jews? I think that is an unfair accusation, which is not to say I agree with Nathanael on all of his points here. I also have not read much of the material on his site. In general, if decent people do not feel free to critique and try to understand the thinking and behavior of Jews, and to employ generalizations in doing so, without ever advocating mistreatment of Jews or blaming all the world’s problems on the Jews, the issue will indeed be monopolized by fascists and some world events will remain hard to grasp.

I definitely don’t think the average Jew in America has a will to power over the Gentiles he knows. But there is in many a sense of following a superior way.

Judaism is a systematic worldview so I don’t understand what you mean when you say generalizations cannot be made about how Jews think. Nathanael is talking about the religion of Judaism, not the Jewish race, and how it forms the minds of Jews, even those who have left the religion. It is reasonable to talk about strains of Jewish thought, which are very evident in history.

Yes, you’re right that repentance is a Jewish phenomenon.

Certainly, Jews don’t have a monopoly on the will to power or any behavior. However, their focus, drive and sense of national destiny do give the Jews a demonstrably strong will to power.  Actually, it is better to speak of a “revolutionary spirit,” which comes from Jewish messianism.  The rulers of Bolshevik Russia were overwhelmingly of Jewish background. [Note: See discussion below in which a reader disputes this statement. I have not reviewed all the historical evidence, so I think it is safer to say that the Jewish influence was prominent.] Marx and Freud demonstrated a strong revolutionary spirit. Mikey Weinstein has a very pronounced will to power. The Hollywood establishment and major media outlets also fit into that category. Bernard Lazare, a 19th-century French journalist, wrote:

“During the second revolutionary period, which started in 1830, they displayed even greater ardor than during the first … It is beyond doubt that the Jews, through their wealth, their energy and their talents, supported and furthered the progress of the European revolution…

“As for their contribution to present-day Socialism, as is well-known, it was and still is enormous.”

The Jewish persecutors of the early Christians showed a will to power. Tertullian wrote, “The synagogue of the Jews is the source of the persecutions.” (Quoted in Animus Injuriandi II by Atila Sinke Guimarães). The Talmud, as many translators have noted for centuries includes numerous sections, which show a strong will to power over Christians. Jumping ahead in history, Pope Benedict XIV spoke in his encyclical letter Bullarium Romanum of the persecution of Christian farmers by Jews. There have been many, many papal pronouncements over the centuries on the subject. I can’t go into even a representative sampling of them here.

Jews have never controlled the market on inhuman treatment of others (obviously they’ve been the victim of quite a bit of it themselves and the Popes have continuously warned through history that Jews must not be physically harmed or persecuted), but Jewish thinking often is directed toward what the Rev. Denis Fahey, an important writer on the subject, called “the elimination of the supernatural outlook in society and the installation of Naturalism.”

Mr. Jaws writes:

I am sorry I did not get around to answering your questions, because this is a very complex topic, which I cannot address adequately over email. But no matter how much success we Ashkenazi Jews have compiled, there is still this 2000-year legacy of mutual “distinctiveness” and “distrust.” As a result, many Jews, particularly those 60 and older, are likely to remember experiences in which they were exposed to hostility. For example, I am 60, and when I was 8 years old I was temporarily alone with the teenage sister of my little friend, Joey. Well, his sister looks at me with distain and mutters, “Jew” with such hostility that I remember it to this day. Then there was the time when I was 13 years old and three older Puerto Rican boys pelted me with rocks yelling, “Go home, Jew!” Later that year when my (lapsed) Catholic father took me to Easter Mass, one of the Puerto Rican kids approached me when I was standing by myself and asked me, “What are you doing in my church, Jew?” And there were always the snide remarks from my friends and ridiculous assertions that some of them did not do well in school because the Jewish teachers only liked kids who were Jewish. You get the picture.

Laura writes:

That kind of taunting still goes on in some places and it is disgusting.

Bill R. writes:

Paul T. writes: “‘The Jew will never live in a neighborhood where poor Blacks, Asians, and Hispanics live’. Guess what? Neither will anyone else with a little money.”

That is not the point. And no one blames the Jew for that. I certainly don’t. The point is that the Jew will never live in a neighborhood where poor blacks, Asians, and Hispanics live, but as an elite of our intelligentsia, pursuing therein against white gentile civilization what Professor Kevin MacDonald aptly calls their “culture of critique,” they preach that all the rest of us should live in those neighborhoods and that the reason we don’t is that we’re racists. That is the point. I highly recommend Kevin MacDonald’s book The Culture of Critique and his other works, by the way, for anyone honestly wanting to know if it’s possible (believe me it is) to be rationally disabused of the notion that Jews cannot or should not be discussed as Jews, or that to make generalizations about them is irrational.

The notion that relevant generalizations cannot rationally be made about Jews, or any other group, without “so many exceptions and qualifications that the generalization loses most of its force” is ridiculous. It is like saying statistical truths do not exist because they do not reflect the actual values of individual units (indeed, for that matter, a statistical value may not equal any one of the individual values in the set to which it relates); nonetheless, statistical truths are quite valid, theoretically and practically — so solid is their truth, in fact, that airline pilots, for example, rely on them to know if their aircraft will be able to make it off the ground or stay aloft if it does — a statistical calculation, or generalization, if you will, upon the truth of which untold thousands of lives depend every single day. Furthermore, the notion is a transparently disingenuous effort to preempt criticism of Jewish attitudes and their agenda, and/or to set the stage for an accusation of anti-Semitism should such criticism be forthcoming nonetheless.

Finally, the notion is a colossal irony when applied to Jews insofar as they are one of the most self-consciously ethnically cohesive groups on the face of the planet. Thus we are presented with the outrageous specter of Jews telling us we are not to speak of them as Jews (unless in praise, of course), when they routinely regard themselves as precisely that first and foremost. They actually have a country that, in fact, is, and that they brag of as, an exclusive racial homeland for their people. So it is that Mr. Netanyahu can go to France and reassure Jews there (who I thought, by the way, were supposed to be Frenchmen, not Jews) that they have a home in Israel. How sweet! French gentiles, of course, have nowhere else to go, and as for the place they do have, they have been pressed incessantly by Jews, as Jews have pressed every other country in the West, to give their home away to hordes of Third World aliens, aliens who hate the French, who hate white gentiles, and, for that matter, who hate Jews as well. Now, let a white gentile ask for the same human right of a homeland for his people, and the same Jew who is comforted that there exists an ethnic homeland for his people, will call him a Nazi or a white supremacist. That is the point.

In closing, I would like to quote the following from a book review by Brenton Sanderson at The Occidental Observer of a book entitled Jewcentricity by Adam Garfinkle (I most highly recommend the entire review). I quote it because it is actually a much better response than the one gave to the Paul T.’s comment regarding a presumed cliché about Jews not wanting to live in poor black, Asian, etc., neighborhoods.

Few on our side of politics quibble with Israel’s desire to establish a Jewish ethnostate and to safeguard this through a racially-restrictive immigration policy. This is only natural. What we desperately resent is that the same people who affirm Israel’s right to exist as a “Jewish state” also deny the moral legitimacy of Western nations following the same path through defining their national identities in racial or ethnic terms. Furthermore, it is an undeniable fact that Jews have been at the forefront of political efforts throughout the West to promote the de-Europeanization of Western nations through lobbying for mass non-White immigration and multiculturalism.

Mr. Jaws writes:

As I said, this is a very complex topic, and Bill R is right.  When it comes to diversity, most Jews are colossal hypocrites.  Two cases.  One real, one notional.  First the real.  My Jewish mother was raised in very leftwing household.  My grandfather was a member of the Socialist Workers Party.  He espoused racial integration in America and world solidarity of workers.  BUT, when his 18-year-old Jewish daughter in 1949 eloped with a Polish Gentile (my father), my Jewish grandfather had a conniption, and according to my mother had a fist fight with my father on the roof of his tenement building in lower Manhattan.

Now the notional.  If I were to defend publicly Israel’s right to remain a Jewish state by forbidding Palestinians to return to their pre-1948 homelands or bar immigration of any non-Jewish group, no one in the West would bat an eye.  Politically speaking, such a move would be, pardon the pun, totally kosher.  But, if I were to say that Poland should remain white and Christian, then I would become a racist and a xenophobe.  Get the picture?   This double-standard hypocrisy imposed by Jewish-instigated political correctness is the source of my greatest frustration with my own people.

Mar. 29, 2015

Felicie writes:

This is in response to the statement that “The rulers of Bolshevik Russia were overwhelmingly of Jewish background.” These claims are unsubstantiated.

Here is a website that has the list of names of all people that were part of the Soviet government between 1917 and 1924. I hope it’s possible to run it through Google translate. It’s too big for me to translate.

The first Sovnarkom (The Council of People’s Commissars) (1917 to 1924) had 18 members. Only Trotskiy was a fully Jewish. Lenin was possibly 1/4 Jewish. This is by no means an overwhelming majority.

You can go through the whole list. You will see that the highest proportion of Jews existed as the members of the Central Committee of the Communist Party in the year of 1918. They were 30%. A really large number if you consider the proportion of Jews in the population as a whole, but by no means an overwhelming majority. In 1917 Jews made up 22%, in 1919 18%, in 1920 23%, in 1921 18%. Then the numbers go down.

If you look at the proportion of Jews as members of various ministries, the percentage is lower. It’s 8%. Not an overwhelming majority.

Laura writes:

I should have qualified my statement by confining it to the first years of Bolshevik government. If I am wrong that over the full period of Bolshevism, Jews were not the “overwhelming majority,” I retract my original statement. I have not read the website you mention.

In making that statement, I was relying, for one, on the work of Robert Wilton, the Russian correspondent of the British newspaper, The Times, for seventeen years, including the period of the Revolution.

His work is quoted in The Rulers of Russia, by the Rev. Denis Fahey. Wilton wrote a book in French titled Les Derniers Jours des Romanof. The English edition, The Last Days of the Romanovs, was published by Thornton Butterworth in 1920. He had obtained lists of leaders of the Bolshevik government.

Thornton wrote in his book, as quoted by Fahey:

“In order not to leave myself open to any accusation of prejudice, I am giving (on pages 136-137) the list of the members of the Central Committee, of the Extraordinary Commission and the Council of Commissars functioning at the time of the assassination of the Imperial Family. The 62 members of the Committee were composed of 5 Russians, 1 Ukrainian, 6 Letts, 2 Germans, 1 Czech, 2 Armenians, 3 Georgians, 1 Karaim (Jewish sect), 41 Jews. The extraordinary Commission of Moscow was composed of 36 members, including 1 German, 1 Pole, 1 Armenian, 2 Russians, 8 Letts, 23 Jews. The council of the People’s Commissars numbered 2 Armenians, 3 Russians, 17 Jews. According to the data furnished by the Soviet Press, out of 556 important functionaries of the Bolshevik State, including the above-mentioned, there were in 1918-1919, 17 Russians, 2 Ukrainians, 11 Armenians, 35 Letts, 15 Germans, 1 Hungarian, 10 Georgians, 3 Poles, 3 Finns, 1 Czech, 1 Karaim, 457 Jews.”

He further states that the 12-member Central Committee of the Bolshevik Party in 1918 included nine Jews, including Trotsky, Zinovieff, Lourie (Larine), Ouritski, Volodarski, Rosenfeldt (Kamenef), Smidovitch, Sverdlof (Yankel), Nakhamkes (Steklof).

The 22-member Council of the People’s Commissars included 17 Jews. (Thornton lists them all by name.)

The 61-member Central Executive Committee included 41 Jews. (Thornton lists them all by name.)

The 36-member Extraordinary Commission of Moscow included 23 Jews. (Thornton lists them all by name.)

He also lists numbers for the other Russian socialist parties, which often worked in opposition to, but also in concert with, the Bolsheviks. The 11-member Central Committee of the Mensheviks, for instance, were all Jews.

Bill R. writes:

If I may, let me compliment Mr. Jaws on what I regard as a most tough and admirable honesty. In my experience, such a courageous capacity for ethnic self-criticism is not often seen, in any ethnic group (I do not include the racial “self-criticism” of white liberals, of which there is an exhausting abundance, as everyone knows, because that is not self-criticism; it is, rather, dishonest, agenda-driven, feel-good self-hatred and condemnation). And what is fortunate is that we human beings can make appropriate generalizations about groups, even ones that are highly negative, yet still find there need be no impediment to appreciating individual members of those groups. When faced with such an individual, we are able to see totally beyond the generalizations we make about their group, even though we know, at the same time, that the generalizations are still valid in their proper context. This is the difference between criticism and realism about an ethnic group, on the one hand, and true prejudice and racism, on the other. The true racist will be incapable of seeing beyond his generalizations regardless of the qualities of the individual before him. For the true racist, the negative statistical truths about a race (and all races have positive statistical truths about them too) have become the immutable and only truth about each individual member. And that is wrong, an excuse for hatred, and an abuse of statistical truth by applying it where it does not apply and, therefore, can no longer be a reliable source of truth.

Paul C. writes:

Bill R.’s comment about the stunning hypocrisy of liberals (which include many Jews) is accurate.  Don’t dare let a white or a Catholic want a homeland, but it is okay for Jews and other ethnicities to retain their identity proactively.

Mark Jaws and other Jews should know how many Catholics think of them, favorably.  This is illustrated by something I was so ashamed of that I never told anyone about it until I told Lawrence Auster not long before he was diagnosed with his terminal illness.

It was fifth grade on Good Friday, about forty days after my Marine Corps. father chastised me for failing to stand up to a bully (which I had usually done previously).  It made me cry, and I never again backed down.

But I sort of backed down again.  I was little for my age but athletic, so I could compete with the big boys in our neighborhood lot.  Indeed, I would insist we keep playing baseball until after dusk.  It would not end until I would curl up and duck at a pitch that I could not see.

These were big boys who could have pounded me senseless.  My brother was two years older.  (My brother and I were talented and fast.)  And two of them were punks, juvenile delinquents who were about a year or two older than my brother.  Dickie, a charming person, was the instigator.

I had befriended a boy my age with the last name of Katz.  I don’t recall his first name (maybe Zach).  He was too shy for me.  But I made the effort because he was my age.  He had me over to his house, just a block from mine, to show me his monorail.  Monorails were the never-realized ideal of the future in 1961, as I had read in Popular Science. As someone good with his hands and who read Popular Science, I was intrigued.

Well intriguing was not my thinking at what he showed me.  He had a rounded piece of wood with two coat-hangers stuck in the wood.  The coat-hangers were supposedly the link to the rail.  Because I did not lie in those days, I simply smiled at the device.  I did not say anything nice about the pathetic junk.

I had engaged in heavy housing renovation for years and had built many plastic models.  So his junk was a real disappointment.  We met maybe once more before I stopped seeking him out.  He was too shy  for me because I am shy.

So as Catholics on Good Friday, my neighborhood playmates and I were off.  We played all day.  But late in the afternoon, little Katz (my size) came walking down the street past us, and the two punks began saying things I barely recall now.  At a minimum, they said, “Happy Hanukkah Bunny” instead of “Happy Easter” and “Jew.”   I was mortified.  This was my friend, and I stood by and said nothing.  I didn’t know what a Jew was, but I knew my friend was being bullied.  He kept walking.

This occurred in front of my home, the meeting place because it was across the street from The Lot and had a streetlamp.  So later, I asked my mother about it.  She explained that Jews did not believe in Jesus Christ.  I was shocked.  I thought everyone did, just as I thought almost everyone was Catholic even though my grandmother was Baptist.

Paul T. writes:

Just for the record, since Bill R warmly recommends Kevin MacDonald’s books, Lawrence Auster termed MacDonald ‘an exterminationist anti-Semite.”

Bill R. says that if you can’t generalize about Jews, you can’t generalize about statistical truths of the sort that airline pilots use. I submit that “the Jew thinks he’s better than we are and wants to dominate us” is not a statistically testable proposition. I don’t know what airline Bill flies on.

As for Jews being “one of the most self-consciously ethnically cohesive groups on the face of the planet”, yes, well, chicken and egg, isn’t it? Meet enough people like Bill R or Prof. MacDonald and you’ll tend to circle the wagons. Secondly, ‘ethnically cohesive’ doesn’t equate with ‘wanting to dominate others’, at least not more than any identifiable group wishes to prevail in its relations with out-groups. Thirdly, the extremely high rate of intermarriage (not only ‘in’ but ‘out’) shows that Jewish ethnic cohesion is breaking down, as it tends to do whenever the ghetto’s unlocked.

I deplore the Jewish role in liberalism and multiculturalism, but its origins are obvious to me. There’s a natural human tendency to ‘fight the last war’. Twentieth-century Jews (after the Russian pogroms, and again after the Nazi genocide) tended to assume that open-door immigration policies were good insurance policies against persecution. Clearly, many still operate on this assumption. (Interestingly, this is in sharp contrast to the horror felt by assimilated 19th-century American Jews when hordes of embarrassing, uncouth, black-coated Jews swarmed into the US after 1880). But now that open-door immigration brings in more and more people who are hostile to Jews, we can expect that Jewish attitudes will in time change, since people (Jewish and non-Jewish) sooner or later give up fighting the last war and start voting their interests. Except among terminal liberals, who are as close to being as beyond hope as anyone is.

By the way, please note my use, above, of words like ‘tended’ and ‘many’ (as opposed to ‘all’). These qualifiers are there because, unlike Brother N, unlike Bill R, unlike Kevin MacDonald, I don’t profess any certainty about ‘what the Jew thinks’.

With the greatest respect, Laura, I think there’s something you’re missing. You say that it’s ‘disgusting’ when people taunt Jews. While (I can’t believe I have to say this again) there’s nothing wrong with criticizing Jews, as Lawrence Auster did — it’s just obvious that taunting is exactly what people like Brother N and Prof. MacDonald are engaged in. The pseudoscientific trappings and the claims of ‘inside knowledge’ fail to conceal what’s actually going on. I’d lot rather someone came up to me at Mass this Sunday and said ‘what are you doing in my Church?’ than to feel compelled, as I do, to spend time replying to the carefully-ginned-up (and in MacDonald’s case, dutifully footnoted) theories of people who lack the honesty of plain thugs.

Paul T. continues:

No, I don’t claim that Brother Nathanael wants to harm Jews, except insofar as calumny is a form of harm. But if you teach people that Jews are more inclined than others to seek domination, to despise repentance, to promote sexual perversion, etc., as Brother Nathanael does — in language almost identical to that of the neo-Nazis on Stormfront — then you create a climate in which mistreatment is more likely. In fact, if the Jews are anywhere near as bad as Brother Nathanael argues, would ‘mistreatment’ even be the word? Perhaps locking Jews in ghettos at dusk, expropriating them, or deporting them en masse, would be reasonable prophylactic measures against such a diabolical bunch?

To say that Jews have a sense of ‘following a superior way’ is something that applies to most groups that are identifiable as groups. It’s hardly a Jewish specialty. (Think “American exceptionalism”). If Jews were poorer and less successful, any pretensions of superiority felt by some of them would be ignored. As it stands, though, these pretensions grate particularly on those who are predisposed to envy Jewish material success. And envy is, of course, not something we should indulge or encourage.

I don’t agree that Brother N makes any effort to describe or understand “Judaism”. He doesn’t discuss Jewish texts, traditions or practices. Like most others of his sort, he is uninterested in the very real differences between religious and nonreligious Jews. What common body of belief unites the Chassid with the atheistic Jewish Marxist who (following Marx and Rosa Luxemburg) holds that’ the solution to the Jewish question is the emancipation of society from Judaism’? Would you really argue that orthodox Jews aim at “the elimination of the supernatural outlook in society and the installation of Naturalism”? And in that connection it should be noted that the non-orthodox Jews are decreasing in relative numbers, through contraception and intermarriage, while the orthodox are increasing; at this rate, it’s very possible that in a century or two it will be difficult to find any significant number of Jews who aim at ‘the elimination of the supernatural outlook’. Doesn’t sound like something innately Jewish.

In any case, Jews comprise less than 2% of the population. The liberal revolution would never have got anywhere unless a much higher percentage of people in Western countries were fully on board with it, as they have been. Probably well over half the population has signed on; as Lawrence Auster said, “It’s their country now”. Whether the revolution would have happened if there were no or fewer Jews is a moot question of the sort that entertains alternate-history buffs. But we can be sure that it would have got nowhere without enthusiastic non-Jewish assent. But how much easier to point at the mote in Jewish eyes!

For the rest, it seems to me that you’ve come up with a list instead of an argument — Russian Jewish commissars, Mikey Weinstein, movie moguls and others who demonstrate the will to power. One could just as easily come up with a long list of Englishmen who have demonstrated the will to power. Or Americans, for that matter. The main difference is that Jews are, by the accidents of history, scattered among many countries, whereas most Englishmen have always lived in England (or the Empire) and most Americans in America. And so the Jewish will to power has been observed in a great many nations and, by a kind of optical illusion, looms larger in the world’s consciousness for that reason. If Jews had not been uprooted from Judea by the Romans, would anyone care more about the Jewish will to power than (say) the English, American, German or Russian will to power?

And no, I am not arguing that the behaviours and belief structures of Jews should be beyond criticism – that’s a straw-man argument and a cliche of antisemitic discourse (I am not accusing you of antisemitism, just noting the cliche). But really, ask yourself; would Lawrence Auster — who certainly couldn’t be accused of regarding Jews as ‘beyond criticism’ — have had much time for a Brother Nathanael?

Laura writes:

I think Paul T. would consider many of the popes of the Catholic Church to be hateful exterminationists. They did indeed condemn on many, many occasions the persecution of Christians by Jews. And they had the moral right to do this, not only because their statements were based on abundant evidence, but also because they strongly condemned violence against the Jews.

Paul T. presents a false dilemma. If one points to Jewish domination in some spheres, something which I believe Brother Nathanael overstates in his first sentence in the post I quoted above, then one is automatically inducing violence toward Jews. No, that’s historically not often been the case. The Catholic Church is not the Nazi Party and the Nazi Party was not Catholic. It is possible when society is governed by the moral authority of the Church to take reasonable action against Jewish domination of the culture without inducing murder of Jews.

One must always condemn unsubstantiated statements about the Jews. I have not read the work of Prof. MacDonald, but I know readers of VFR, including at least one Jewish reader, who took strong exception to Mr. Auster’s statement about him. However, I am not going to defend him because I have not read him yet.

I will say that Paul T.’s suggestion that Bill R. is an exterminationist is bullying, and I won’t have it here. Brother Nathanael, whose work I have not fully read by any means, advocates that all resources be devoted to conversion of the Jews (he wrongly thinks that this can be done outside the moral authority of the Church) and Paul T. essentially says he too is an exterminationist.

Laura writes:

Paul T.’s comments that Jews advocating excessive immigration are merely fighting the last war does not correspond with the strong advocacy of racial amalgamation by Jewish socialists in America before World War II. I’d like to say more about this, giving some examples, but it will have to wait for the moment.

Dan R. writes:

An interview with Brother Nathanael, on The Political Cesspool radio program, from 2011. An hour of his relentless diatribe reminds me of the Whittaker Chambers quote from his review of Atlas Shrugged: “To a gas chamber–GO!”

Brother Nathanael, being of the more gracious kind, only wants to prohibit Jews from holding civic office.

Laura writes:

So it’s okay to joke about critics of Jews being sent to gas chambers? Hmm.

Bill R. writes:

Fascinating about Auster’s Jewish friend who  objected to his views on MacDonald. Some Jews are indeed exceptions and have that rare capacity for ethnic self-criticism. MacDonald counted Auster as one of them, and also Paul Gottfried.

What’s interesting is that I went to VFR yesterday after emailing you and read portions of Lawrence Auster’s piece about Jews (“Jews: The Archetypal Multiculturalists”) that MacDonald praised. And I have to hand it to Auster. He hits them pretty hard. He writes, for example, “As was the case with the campaign against Christianity in the public schools, there is a vanishingly thin line between the Jewish desire to be protected from the majority culture, and the Jewish desire to destroy the majority culture. For many Jews, white gentile society, in and of itself, is a threat.”  There you are. That’s it. That’s really the core of it. Once a person has acknowledged that — the pervasive feeling of threat from gentile society that abides among Jews — all the other criticisms, I think, logically follow, e.g., why they’re in the forefront of advocating mass non-white immigration, multiculturalism, etc. — their whole “culture of critique” — while advocating just the opposite of these things for their own people and their own homeland.

Bill R. also writes:

Bill R. continues:

Paul T. writes, “I submit that ‘the Jew thinks he’s better than we are and wants to dominate us’ is not a statistically testable proposition.” It is a testable proposition. And I need not say a statistically testable proposition either. The statistics argument is an analogy; the two situations are not meant to be taken as identical. That’s why people use analogies. Or perhaps Paul T. thinks that analogies should never be used since they need to be “hedged around” with “so many exceptions and qualifications that they lose most of their force.” At any rate, the comparison is apt. And the way you test it is illustrated in the following quote from Kevin MacDonald, “Whenever I discuss these issues I always qualify my remarks by noting that not all Jews hold the same opinions. Making a case for Jewish influence is a matter of looking at where the great mass of Jewish money and influence is being brought to bear and trying to determine if their efforts are effective.”

Moving lower (in more ways than one), Paul T. speaks of the “theories of people who lack the honesty of plain thugs.” Well, it takes one to know one, doesn’t it? Remarkable (no, not really) how quickly Paul T. found his way to the good old ad hominen grab-bag of nasty names. What a spectacle: Paul T. compares Kevin MacDonald to a thug, then has the gall to accuse him of being the taunter. As the Jews say, that’s “chutzpah!”

Dan R. writes:

In your response to my post, whether a matter of misinterpretation or the fault of my writing, joking about “critics of Jews being sent to gas chambers” was not at all on my mind.

“So it’s okay to joke about critics of Jews being sent to gas chambers? Hmm.”

In National Review, around the time of its publication Chambers wrote a very harsh review of Ayn Rand’s book Atlas Shrugged.  Here is his comment in context:

“Out of a lifetime of reading, I can recall no other book in which a tone of overriding arrogance was so implacably sustained. Its shrillness is without reprieve. Its dogmatism is without appeal… [R]esistance to the Message cannot be tolerated because disagreement can never be merely honest, prudent, or just humanly fallible. Dissent from revelation so final (because, the author would say, so reasonable) can only be willfully wicked. There are ways of dealing with such wickedness, and, in fact, right reason itself enjoins them. From almost any page of Atlas Shrugged, a voice can be heard, from painful necessity, commanding: “To a gas chamber–go!” The same inflexibly self-righteous stance results, too (in the total absence of any saving humor), in odd extravagances of inflection and gesture-that Dollar Sign, for example. At first, we try to tell ourselves that these are just lapses, that this mind has, somehow, mislaid the discriminating knack that most of us pray will warn us in time of the difference between what is effective and firm, and what is wildly grotesque and excessive. Soon we suspect something worse. We suspect that this mind finds, precisely in extravagance, some exalting merit; feels a surging release of power and passion precisely in smashing up the house. A tornado might feel this way, or Carrie Nation.”

My comment was intended to note what I believe are similarities in Kapner’s attitude toward Jews with the mindset critiqued by Chambers, which I thought would have been made clear by my last line as to how it differs.

Laura writes:

I understand now. I misinterpreted your comment. You were saying that Nathanael is so shrill that he seems to be saying, “To a gas chamber — go!”

Felicie writes:

I cannot address all of these lists now. Let me address one for now.

You write: “He further states that the 12-member Central Committee of the Bolshevik Party in 1918 included nine Jews, including Trotsky, Zinovieff, Lourie (Larine), Ouritski, Volodarski, Rosenfeldt (Kamenef), Smidovitch, Sverdlof (Yankel), Nakhamkes (Steklof).”

Here is the list of the names of people who made up the Central Committee of the Bolshevik Party in 1918 (the year when the Jews made up 30%, which was the highest percentage ever, according to this website):

The Central Committee was made up of members and candidates, alltogether 23 people, not 12.
These people were elected vy the Seventh Congree of the Communist party on the 8th of March, 1918. Here is the Wikipedia entry. It has exactly the same names as the website I sent you.

You can Google these names and translate the biographies. Some of these names exist in the English Google, as well.

Members:

1. Fyodor Andreyevich Sergeyev (Artyom) – Russian
2. Nikolay Ivanovich Buharin – Russian
3. Mihail Fyodorovich Vladimirskiy – Russian
4. Felix Edmundovich Dzerzhinski – Polish
5. Grigorij Evseyevich Zinovyev (Ovsey-Gersh Aronovich Radomyslskiy) – Jewish
6. Nikolay Nikolayevich Krestinskiy – Ukrainian
7. Mihail Mihaylovich Lashevich – Jewish
8. Vladimir Illich Lenin (Ulyanov) – Russian (mixed ancestry, and no more than 1/4 Jewish)
9. Yakov Mihajlovich Sverdlov – Jewish
10. Smilga Ivar Tenisovich – Latvian
11. Sokolnikov Grigoriy Yakovlevich (Girsh Yankelevich Brilliant) – Jewish
12. Yosif Vissarionovich Stalin (Dzhugashvili) – Ossetin/Georgian
13. Yelena Dmitrievna Stasova – Russian
14. Lev Davidovich Trotskiy (Bronshteyn) – Jewish
15. Vasilij Vladimirovich Shmidt – German

Candidates:

1. Yan Antonovich Berzin – Latvian
2. Adolf Abramovich Yoffe – Jewish
3. Alexej Semyonovich Kiselyov – Russian
4. Georgriy Ippolitovich Lomov (Oppokov) – Russian
5. Grigoriy Ivanovich Petrovskiy – Ukrainian
6. Pyotr Ivanovich Stuchka – Latvian
7. Moisey Solomonovish Uritskiy (Boretskiy) – Jewish
8. Aleksandr Gavrilovich Shlyapnikov – Russian

I can translate other names for other years, but not today.

So we have found Trotsky, Zinovieff, Ouritski, Rosenfeldt (Kamenef), Sverdlof (Yankel – why Yankel? Wikipedia lists him as Yakov Sverdlov, his father as Mihail Sverdlov) from the Wilton’s list. But were are Lourie (Larine), Volodarski, Smidovitch, and Nakhamkes (Steklof)? And who are they?

The website I sent you does mention the book by R. Wilton and calls it a falsification. The links to the debunking sites have now expired. But as Wikipedia confirms, the list of names that Wilton cites is incorrect.

Laura writes:

Thank you for the links. I promise to pursue the subject when I can and I will note next to my original comment your objections.

Paul T. writes:

You write:”I think Paul T. would consider many of the popes of the Catholic Church to be hateful exterminationists”. It’s hard to defend oneself against so vague a charge, and I am the last one to say that Jews were ever justified in persecuting Christians. How did we get from Lawrence Auster saying that Kevin MacDonald was an ‘exterminationist antisemite’ to my allegedly ‘considering’ various nameless Popes to be ‘hateful exterminationists’? I’ll trust the worst of the Popes more than I’ll trust Kevin MacDonald or his apologists.

Nor did I say that Brother Nathanael was inciting violence against Jews, only that the language he uses – which in places really is very close to the language of radical antisemites and Nazi propagandists – can only tend to create a climate of opinion in which anti-Jewish actions (not necessarily violent, though violence isn’t excluded) will be more rather than less likely. Indeed, as I said, if you were to take Brother N’s views as Gospel, anti-Jewish measures of some kind would seem to be a reasonable prophylactic response to the threats posed by ‘the Jew.’

Laura writes:

You’re right. I should have justified my statement, which I made after reading samples of previous writings of the popes on Jews from Guimarães’s book, which I highly recommend. Their language, it occurred to me, would probably be statements you would put in the category of dangerous calumnies. But that is presumptuous to say so without providing you with samples. However, I did not have the time to put down some of these statements. And I do not have time to do it at this moment. I hope to return to the subject.

Let me say, in general, that your concern that strong criticism of the Jews can lead to either violence or persecution of Jews in the larger culture is warranted, given past history of violence toward Jews. Fortunately, those of us who uphold the moral law and the divine jurisdiction of the Catholic Church over moral life, those of us who are continuously pointing to the fallenness of human nature and the reality of hell, are a counter-check to over-reactions to Jewish domination and all racial hatred.

Paul T. continues:

You write: “Paul T.’s comments that Jews advocating excessive immigration are merely fighting the last war does not correspond with the strong advocacy of racial amalgamation by Jewish socialists in America before World War II”. But I referred specifically to the Tsarist pogroms as well as to Hitler’s genocide. “Fighting the last war” needn’t be taken literally; I think it’s generally understood to mean ‘having one’s eyes on the past to the extent of missing that the character of the war and the identity of the enemy have changed”. Jewish support for open-borders immigration reflects both the experience of the Tsarist pogroms and of the Nazi genocide. Of course such support is self-interested, but again, Jews are hardly alone in acting on self-interest. (See my earlier comments on dissassociation and projection).

Bill R. writes: “What a spectacle: Paul T. compares Kevin MacDonald to a thug, then has the gall to accuse him of being the taunter”. Again, not what I said. The ‘plain thug’ I referred to was the kind of person whose behaviour you, Laura, described as disgusting – the frank bully who will say to a Jew ‘what are you doing in my church?” and so on. I was saying that polite anti-Semites like MacDonald lack the honesty of the plain thug–not that MacDonald is a plain thug. It’s true that I’m not convinced (and neither was Lawrence Auster) that MacDonald is morally superior to the plain thug, but to say so is hardly ‘taunting’. Bill R. is the one who says “Can’t we criticize the Jews?” Well, can’t we criticize Kevin MacDonald?

March 30, 2015

Bill R. writes:

I was reflecting on your exchange with Felicie and it occurred to me that it is better to refer to “overrepresentation” rather than “majority” or “overwhelming majority” when it comes to the question of Jewish involvement in the Bolshevik revolution. It avoids the quibbling over numbers and makes the point just as well, I think, which in turn supports the central point, which Lawrence Auster essentially made as well in the quote I shared the other day, and that is that Jews regard gentile civilization as their greatest threat, and that once you understand that central point, all the other criticisms about them fall into place and make sense, even the most seemingly unrelated of criticisms that involve circumstances far apart in time.

Thus, when one asks, for example, why the Jews were so overrepresented in the Bolshevik revolution, or why they are at the forefront of the movement for mass non-white immigration into Western countries, the ultimate answer is the same: because they regard white gentile civilization as their greatest threat, and because they do, they naturally seek to subvert, undermine, and ultimately destroy it. And their method is the “culture of critique.” They are bitterly opposed to our white gentile civilization, so much so that they would rather advocate mass Muslim immigration into Western European countries than support it. I am convinced that if Mexico were a Muslim country, their open-borders advocacy here would not be one whit less passionate.

But getting back to your exchange with Felicie and the issue of Jewish involvement in the Bolshevik revolution and its aftermath. Kevin MacDonald has written a long book review (35 pages) of a book by Yuri Slezkine published in 2004 called The Jewish Century. (You can obtain it at this link: http://www.kevinmacdonald.net/slezkinerev.pdf). In your exchange with Felicie, however, a couple of passages caught my attention and I thought I’d quote them:

This long tradition [that the Bolshevik revolution was a Jewish revolution and that the Soviet Union was dominated by Jews] stands in sharp contradiction to the official view, promulgated by Jewish organizations and almost all contemporary historians, that Jews played no special role in Bolshevism and indeed were specifically victimized by it. Yuri Slezkine’s book provides a much needed resolution to these opposing perspectives.

And further on:

Jewish representation at the top levels of the Cheka and OGPU (the acronyms by which the secret police was known in different periods) has often been the focus of those stressing Jewish involvement in the revolution and its aftermath. Slezkine provides statistics on Jewish overrepresentation in these organizations, especially in supervisory roles, and agrees with Leonard Schapiro’s comment that “anyone who had the misfortune to fall into the hands of the Cheka stood a very good chance of finding himself confronted with and possibly shot by a Jewish investigator” (p. 177). During the 1930s the secret police, then known as the NKVD, “was one of the most Jewish of all Soviet institutions” (p. 254), with 42 of its 111 top officials being Jewish. At this time 12 of the 20 NKVD directorates were headed by ethnic Jews, including those in charge of state security, police, labor camps, and resettlement (i.e., deportation). The Gulag was headed by ethnic Jews from its beginning in 1930 until the end of 1938, a period that encompasses the worst excesses of the Great Terror. They were, in Slezkine’s words, “Stalin’s willing executioners” (p. 103).

 […]

The Bolsheviks continued to apologize for Jewish overrepresentation until the topic became taboo in the 1930s. And it was not until the late 1930s that there was a rise in visibility and assertiveness of “anti-Semites, ethnic nationalists, and advocates of proportional representation” (p. 188). By this time the worst of the slaughters in the Gulag, the purges, and the contrived famines had been completed.

The prominence of Jews in the Revolution and its aftermath was not lost on participants on both sides, including influential figures such as Winston Churchill, who wrote that the role of Jews in the revolution “is certainly a very great one; it probably outweighs all others.”⁵⁵ Slezkine highlights similar comments in a book published in 1927 by V. V. Shulgin, a Russian nationalist, who experienced firsthand the murderous acts of the Bolsheviks in his native Kiev in 1919:

“We do not like the fact that this whole terrible thing was done on the Russian back and that it has cost us unutterable losses. We do not like the fact that you, Jews, a relatively small group within the Russian population, participated in this vile deed out of all proportion to your numbers” (p. 181; italics in original).

Slezkine does not disagree with this assessment, but argues that Jews were hardly the only revolutionaries (p. 180). This is certainly true, but does not affect my argument that Jewish involvement was a necessary condition, not merely a sufficient condition, for the success of the Bolshevik Revolution and its aftermath.⁵⁶ Slezkine’s argument clearly supports the Jews-as-necessary-condition claim, especially because of his emphasis on the leadership role of Jews.

Laura writes:

Since I cannot substantiate beyond my limited reading at this point that Jews were an “overwhelming majority” in the executive committees of Bolshevism in the early years of the Revolution, it is indeed far better to point merely to their numerical over-representation and strong influence in the Bolshevik government, which I believe is indisputable.

Bill R. writes in response to final comment by Paul T.:

Paul T. writes, “I was saying that polite anti-Semites like MacDonald lack the honesty of the plain thug–not that MacDonald is a plain thug. It’s true that I’m not convinced (and neither was Lawrence Auster) that MacDonald is morally superior to the plain thug, but to say so is hardly ‘taunting’.”

An amusing case of self-contradiction. You claim you said that MacDonald simply lacked the honesty of a plain thug, not that he was one (by the way, I said you compared him to a thug, not that you said he was). Presumably, then, that means that, aside from his mendacity, you regard him as morally superior to a plain thug. But then you immediately turn around and say you’re not convince he was morally superior to a plain thug, leaving it that he is either morally equivalent to a plain thug in total, or possibly even inferior to one.

Paul T. writes, “Bill R. is the one who says ‘Can’t we criticize the Jews?’ Well, can’t we criticize Kevin MacDonald?”

You obviously can, sir, and have, and you should have ever the right to criticize. And please note, by the way, that I have not called you a thug, a bully, an anti-Semite, nor a would-be mass-murderer for doing so.

Paul T. writes, “Nor did I say that Brother Nathanael was inciting violence against Jews, only that the language he uses – which in places really is very close to the language of radical antisemites and Nazi propagandists – can only tend to create a climate of opinion in which anti-Jewish actions (not necessarily violent, though violence isn’t excluded) will be more rather than less likely.”

Even Adolf Hitler himself said things about Jews I think were sometimes accurate. Adolf Hitler also went on to become a mass-murderer. The latter fact does not, by itself, however, make all the observations he made over the course of his life about Jews automatically invalid or untrue, nor conversely, therefore, does it mean that because someone has used language even “very close to radical anti-Semites and Nazi propagandists” that they want to send Jews to gas chambers or commit any other violence against them. A person’s words obviously do not always correspond to their deeds and vice versa. Any statement about Jews has the right to be judged and examined on its own merits, dispassionately and factually, not summarily dismissed on the basis of guilt-by-association. As for Paul T.’s “not necessarily violent” anti-Jewish actions, what does he mean? What’s he trying to say? That my people and my culture are to be forever barred from taking any kind of action at all to defend themselves from the hostility of Jews directed against them? Yes, of course, it may become necessary for white gentile civilization to take actions to protect itself against the hostility directed toward it — it is, in fact, long overdue — be that from the Jew, the Muslim, the Negro, the Mexican, or any other source of such hostility. But “taking action” does not equal only gas chambers and mass murder, nor inevitably lead to them either. And should you insist on seeing in that statement, nonetheless, the shadow of Auschwitz, that’s your problem. I refuse to be intimidated by that specter, nor should my people be paralyzed from protecting themselves against Jewish hostility because Jews tell them that if they do, they will instantly and automatically become Nazis. My people were not responsible for Auschwitz; on the contrary, they were responsible for liberating it from the murderers and oppressors who ran it — for which, by the way, they have received not one ounce of gratitude from the Jew, to this day; indeed, the Jew has preferred instead to include them in the blame for Auschwitz.

Lawrence Auster spoke, in the quote I produced earlier in this thread, of the “vanishingly thin line between the Jewish desire to be protected from the majority culture, and the Jewish desire to destroy the majority culture” (emphasis added). Now, by God, that majority culture has a right to defend itself against any source of attack upon it, by whatever means and as much force as are necessary to bring the attack to an end. The eternal human right to protect oneself and one’s people from harm belongs to everyone, including Jews. The fact is that much of what passes and has passed throughout history for anti-Semitism the Jew has provoked and brought upon himself (and has yet to admit; instead, like a neurotic, he forever sees the source of his troubles nowhere but outside himself and, to the Jew, those troubles remain, or so he claims, utterly inexplicable in terms of anything there might be in his own behavior).

My suggestion, therefore, to the Jew, is that if he really does not like anti-Semitism (rather than enjoying its use as a rhetorical weapon against his enemies) and the consequences that flow from it, stop making of himself an enemy of my people and my civilization. We can be friends, or at least co-exist peacefully. Let the Jew choose to change his ways and defend my people and my civilization and I will do the same for him and his, and do so with joy and enthusiasm, since I believe all races and ethnic groups on this planet have a moral right, and even the obligation, to preserve themselves and their cultures and ways of life. The Jew, likewise, has every right to defend Israel and the integrity of his race with a restrictive and even exclusive immigration policy, as well a mono-culturalism that ranks Judaism and Zionism at the very top of the scale in the home where he lives. No desire could be more natural. I ask only of the Jew that he support (or at least not attack) the right of me and my people to do — and have — the same.

Laura writes:

Thanks for your comments.

I just want to clarify that, in my view, we have been talking here about Jews in the sense of the religion, i.e., people formed in the worldview of Judaism, not Jews in the sense of a race of people. Israel is primarily a religious homeland, and that is true even though many, perhaps most Israelis are not very religious. Even atheist Jews have very often been formed by the worldview of Judaism. They have taken the messianism and translated it into an atheistic context. It’s the underlying religious ideas, not racial enmity, that cause Jews to oppose or remain detached from Christian civilization, and that has been true for over 2,000 years.

Hitler saw Jews in racial terms only. He hated the Jewish race.